How the enemies of the Church realize the power of the Rosary found in the book of a communist AA-1025.
The rosary, the sacraments, the Mass, are all the tools that are the first choice of a Catholic in this battle. But we must also keep in mind our duty to protect life, even at the cost of an attacker's life. I don't know if I could ever be up to that challenge but we will receive the grace necessary if and when the moment ever arrives. A Christian Duty in the Face of Terror by Fr. George Rutler | Updated 26 Jul 2016 at 5:54 PM After another devastating ISIS attack in France, this time against a priest in his 80s while he was saying Mass, the answer isn’t just, “Do nothing.” As racism distorts race and sexism corrupts sex — so does pacifism affront peace. Turning the other cheek is the counsel Christ gave in the instance of an individual when morally insulted: Humility conquers pride. It has nothing to do with self-defense. Christ warned the apostles, as shepherds, to beware of wolves. The Catholic Church has always maintained that the defiance of an evil force is not only a right but an obligation. Its Catechism (cf. #2265) cites St. Thomas Aquinas: “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State.” A father is culpable if he does not protect his family. A bishop has the same duty as a spiritual father of his sons and daughters in the church, just as the civil state has as its first responsibility the maintenance of the “tranquility of order” through self-defense. Christ warned the apostles, as shepherds, to beware of wolves. This requires both the "shrewdness of serpents and the innocence of doves." To shrink from the moral duty to protect peace by not using force when needed is to be innocent as a serpent and shrewd as a dove. That is not innocence — it is naiveté. Saint John Capistrano led an army against the Moors in 1456 to protect Belgrade. In 1601, Saint Lawrence of Brindisi did the same in defense of Hungary. As Franciscans, they carried no sword and charged on horseback into battle carrying a crucifix. They inspired the shrewd generals and soldiers, whom they had assembled through artful diplomacy, with their brave innocence. This is not obscure trivia: Were it not for Charles Martel at Tours in 732 and Jan Sobieski at the gates of Vienna in 1683 — and most certainly had Pope Saint Pius V not enlisted Andrea Doria and Don Juan at Lepanto in 1571 — we would not be here now. No Western nations as we know them — no universities, no modern science, no human rights — would exist. In the ninth century, the long line of martyrs of Cordoba told the Spanish Umayyad Caliph Abd Ar-Rahman II that his denial of Christ was infernal, and that they would rather die than surrender. Saint Juan de Ribera (d. 1611) and St. Alfonsus Liguori (d. 1787) repeated the admonition that the concept of peace in Islam requires not co-existence but submission. The dormancy of Islam until recent times, however, has obscured the threat that this poses — especially to a Western civilization that has grown flaccid in virtue and ignorant of its own moral foundations. The shortcut to handling the crisis is to deny that it exists. On the first day of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, there were over 60 speeches, and yet not one of them mentioned ISIS. Vice has destroyed countless individual souls, but in the decline of civilizations, weakness has done more harm than vice. "Peace for our time" is as empty now as it was when Chamberlain went to Munich and honor was bartered in Vichy. Hilaire Belloc, who knew Normandy and all of Europe well, said in 1929: "We shall almost certainly have to reckon with Islam in the near future. Perhaps, if we lose our faith, it will rise. For after this subjugation of the Islamic culture by the nominally Christian had already been achieved, the political conquerors of that culture began to notice two disquieting features about it. The first was that its spiritual foundation proved immovable; the second, that its area of occupation did not recede, but on the contrary slowly expanded." The priest in Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvrary in Normandy, France, was not the first to die at the altar — and he will not be the last. In his old age, the priest embodied a civilization that has been betrayed by a generation whose hymn was John Lennon's "Imagine" — that there was neither heaven nor hell but "above us only sky" and "all the people living for today." When reality intrudes, they can only leave teddy bears and balloons at the site of a carnage they call "inexplicable." Fr. George William Rutler is a Catholic priest and the pastor of the Church of St. Michael in Manhattan.
My hubby and I were discussing this today - he thinks we are wrong to have to kill in defense. Does "Thou shalt not kill" mean that it's ok, if you think someone might harm your family or yourself? Only in times of war? Always in self defense? Do you shoot first? So many questions!
That's something that troubles me too. Some say that the more precise translation of the 5th Commandment is "Thou shalt not murder" which would allow for self defence.
The below might be of interest Sparrow ..... it may also good to remember that when Tyrants come to power one of the first things they do is disarm, make helpless, citizens ... and then, more often than not, use the criminal element to help them maintain power. Remember also, USA Gang, that the very people that "push" unlimited Abortion, Perversion and BigBro Government in your home, business & church are the very same folks who want Gun Control, coddle criminals and despise traditional Christians!! "The Biblical and Natural Right of Self-Defense" http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/338845/biblical-and-natural-right-self-defense- GOD SAVE ALL HERE!!
Something tells me the Fifth Commandment does not mean "stand there and let some maniac kill you." We have a right to defend ourselves if we are attacked. Of course we may not succeed; but give them a run for their money as they say. That poor French Priest tried to defend himself; but at 85 he was easily overpowered. Don't forget these demons use women and children as human shields to protect themselves, and don't mind killing the old and defenceless. So be ready to lash out if one of them tries to threaten you, that is what I intend if needed.
The Catholic Catechism is very clear on self defense (see 2263 and 2264 below). Bottom line is we are not guilty of murder if we are defending our own life. And if you are responsible for a family, it is your grave duty to defend your family. You don't render a lethal blow if you don't have to, but if you have to you do it in defense of yourself or your family. Legitimate defense 2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65 2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow: If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility. 2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67 2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm
